TimG

Maybe these rising prices would be, in part, offset by localized production. I think he could and would. Richard will never win any elections.

I don't think settling for a major party candidate when you think someone else would make a better President is necessarily a "positive statement".

Why on earth would you consider that? Not everyone knows the Laws off by heart. Perhaps they remembered a previous lead out of turn when declarer became dummy & vice versa, and thought that might apply here. They did exactly what they should do: an irregularity occurred, and they called the TD without doing anything else. Except for the "insisting that those cards remain on the table" part.

Yes, I think this site has an agenda. Convince everyone that he/she is to the "left" (whatever that means) of all politicians with the possible exception of Nelson Mandela. I think it is a matter of degree. One of the early statements was: "I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong." I suspect that many people "strongly disagreed" with this statement. But, I also suspect that there aren't many people doing much about it when they are in disagreement with their country's policies. We may spout off in the water cooler or express our opinion at the ballot box, but I doubt many of us are actively involved in getting policy changed. "Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence." We may feel strongly about this, but again, I doubt any of us feels this is an issue of vital importance, or one that would get us out to knock on doors. I live in Maine where there have been three referenda regarding gay rights in the last decade or so. This is an issue I feel strongly about, but the most I have done (besides vote) is make a contribution. In short, I think it's easy to strongly agree or disagree with statements even if the issues are not important enough to us to move us away from our keyboards. The political compass questionnaire would be much more interesting if the options were: "I have taken action against this", "I have voted against this", "I have done nothing", "I have voted in support this", and "I have taken action in support of this". I suspect strongly that we'd all be closer to the center.

I would have voted for Nader, too. In fact, I have in the past. But, this year I wanted my vote to count, even if it just added to the margin of victory. Have you seen his post-election "Uncle Tom" interview comments? That might cure you from any temptation to ever vote for him again :( No, I haven't seen any post-election interviews. Maybe I will look for it. I really do not know a whole lot about Nader; my votes for him have been more along the lines of "none of the above" than any real liking for Nader. The few things that I have heard him speak about have made sense to me, though.

I would have voted for Nader, too. In fact, I have in the past. But, this year I wanted my vote to count, even if it just added to the margin of victory.

Some of the statements must be location dependent: "The rich are too highly taxed." Might this matter where you live?

Economic Left/Right: -3.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.08

Except that in the US cars are very often financed rather than paid for in one lump sum by the consumer. So, instead of comparing $20k to $30k, you would be comparing $400/moth to $600/month and then monthly fuel costs (and maintenance and insurance) do figure highly into the equation.

It may be irrational, but it seems more reasonable to me to tax gas or low MPG cars to make hybrids more on a par price-wise than to give tax credits (or breaks) for those who purchase hybrids. Nor does it seem like there should be a tax break for buying a Toyota Camry Hybrid that gets 34 MPG but no tax break for buying a Volkswagen Jetta (diesel) that gets similar MPG.

I think this is something of a red herring; you shouldn't really base your actions on the possibility that partner has done something a little unusual. If partner opened 1♦ with 45 in the minors, it was because he thought he could handle the auction.

diamonds south: 4.08093 clubs south: 2.55917 diamond fit longer: 0.43646 equal fits: 0.28517 club fit longer: 0.27837 Frequency diamond club combination for opener: Low 3 4 5 High Sum Low 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9448 18909 0 0 0 28357 4 17690 16578 8524 0 0 42792 5 12608 6668 2447 402 0 22125 High 4890 1427 361 46 2 6726 Sum 44636 43582 11332 448 2 100000 Generated 306702 hands Produced 100000 hands Initial random seed 1226444689

$10? $10 it is. Here's the script. I can run it, too, or an independent 3rd party can. predeal north SQ, H543, DAT53, CKJT32 # south # s_hcp = hcp(south)>11 && hcp(south)<20 s_shape = hearts(south)<5 && spades(south)<5 && diamonds(south)>=clubs(south) south_ok=s_shape # counting dia = (diamonds(south) + diamonds(north)) > (clubs(south) + clubs(north)) clu = (diamonds(south) + diamonds(north)) < (clubs(south) + clubs(north)) equ = (diamonds(south) + diamonds(north)) == (clubs(south) + clubs(north)) # condition condition south_ok generate 50000000 produce 100000 # actions action average "diamonds south" diamonds(south), average "clubs south" clubs(south), average "diamond fit longer" dia, average "equal fits" equ, average "club fit longer" clu, frequency "diamond club combination for opener" (diamonds(south), 3, 5, clubs(south), 3, 5),

How much? For shape constraints, I will agree that opener has no five-card or longer major and that opener's diamonds are at least as long as clubs (meaning that you always open 1♦ with equal length minors, even when 33). I'll write a dealer script to match these conditions (which I will post here so that you and others may review it) to be run over a sample size of 100,000 deals. Someone else can run the script and report the results (including initial random seed so that they can be independently confirmed).

High school chemistry in the US is probably not what it is in many other developed countries. I suspect strongly that an overwhelming majority of US citizens have no idea what the chemical reaction is in even the simplest examples of combustion.

What you say is probably true, but I think it largely a matter of numbers. There were immediate advances when African Americans were first allowed to vote in the 1870s. From the wikipedia list: 1870 First African American to vote in an election under the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, granting voting rights regardless of race: Thomas Mundy Peterson January: First African American elected to U.S. Congress: Senator Hiram Rhodes Revels (Republican, Mississippi) December: First African American elected to U.S. House of Representatives: Joseph Rainey (Republican, South Carolina) But, one must consider that at the time of the Civil War, there were some southern states where the number of slaves exceeded the number of white folk. What were the African and white populations of South Africa at the time of Mandela's election? I seem to think that whites make up about 10% of South Africa's population. So really, it's not particularly surprising that an African was elected so quickly. If I recall my US history correctly, there were more African Americans in federal elected office in the 1880s than there were in the middle of the 20th century. That is, things regressed between 1880 and 1960. Wikipedia shows three African American members of the House of Representatives in the 1950s, 14 in the 1870s, and none between 1901 and 1929. There were two African American Senators in the 19th century and two in the 20th century, the first elected in 1966. (There was also one African American Senator in the 21st century, Barack Obama.) Another item from your list: 1884 First African American to play professional baseball at the major-league level: Moses Fleetwood Walker. Of course we all think of Jackie Robinson crossing this barrier in 1947. But really, as in so many other arenas, the door was opened in the 19th century only to be closed and not reopened for many years.

Change doesn't come that quickly. This election may be seen more as a reaction to Bush (and/or Cheney) than an overall shift one way or the other. Certainly we'll have to wait a few years (or decades) to find out.

I've put about 3000 miles on my vehicle in the last six months which is quite easily less than half of what I put on my vehicle last year over the same six months. I also sold my hybrid SUV and bought a less gas efficient pickup truck. Even so, I've used less gas than I did last year. I know others who have changed their driving habits in the last year.

I was careful to say "I believe the stereotypical differences between men and women are largely the result of society perpetuating those stereotypes rather than inherent differences in the emotional makeup of men and women." I don't believe that there are no differences between the sexes. But, I believe the inherent differences are minuscule when compared to the learned differences or differences perpetuated by society.

Would you seriously argue that woman and man are the same? That their body/way of thinking/emotions etc. are equal? I think that no two individuals are identical, that we all have different ways of thinking and different emotions. (There are obvious physical difference between men and women, but don't see how these come into play post child birth.) I believe the stereotypical differences between men and women are largely the result of society perpetuating those stereotypes rather than inherent differences in the emotional makeup of men and women. I think that the difficulties are imposed by society. The problems you mention, two men experiencing difficulty adopting and judges preferring children be with their mother rather than their father, are not difficulties based upon any inherent qualities of parents of that particular sex, but based upon your society's traditional expectations for parents of that sex.

Men are allowed to marry women; women are not allowed to marry women. This is not equal.

How does the role of a mother/wife/woman differ from the role of a parent/spouse/human?

Because nobody is afforded the right to marry three women; polygamy is not allowed for some and not for others. Marriage (or whatever you want to call it) is allowed for some (heterosexual couples) and not for others (homosexual couples). The two groups are treated differently, that is discrimination. The law does not treat those who want to marry more than one person differently than those who want to marry just one person (or who don't want to marry anyone), the law says that none of these people can marry multiple persons (concurrently).

Is it easy for a heterosexual couple to raise children? I don't see why it should be any easier or harder for homosexual couples, except for difficulties related to the stigma applied by society.

But, believing it does not make it so. Nor does a majority of people deciding it is not OK make it wrong; history is full of practices supported by majorities of people that later generations have overwhelmingly determined to be wrong -- take, for instance, slavery or denying women the right to vote. (It is my hope, and expectation, that a generation or two into the future, my grandchildren will look back and not understand how society could have been so slow to provide equal rights for gays.)